Levesque v. Schroder Inv. Mgmt. N. Am., Inc.
368 F. Supp. 3d 302
D.D.C.2019Background
- Plaintiff Shaun Levesque worked for Schroder Investment Management North America, Inc. (SIMNA) from 2008 until termination in Sept. 2017; he worked and resided in Massachusetts and managed east-coast institutional sales.
- Compensation schemes changed: a 2013 incentive plan (quantitative and qualitative awards) and a 2016 internal memorandum memorializing transfer terms and targeted compensation.
- Levesque alleges SIMNA failed to pay multiple promised/earned awards: a $250,000 management bonus (2013), a $300,000 qualitative bonus (2013), $367,000 quantitative (2016), $500,000 qualitative (2016), and $732,000 quantitative (would have been paid but for 2017 termination).
- Levesque complained internally about unpaid compensation; shortly thereafter his role was moved to London and he was terminated (he was not offered relocation). He alleges retaliation and age discrimination (he was 60).
- Procedurally: defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, to transfer venue, and for failure to state claims; the court addressed jurisdiction, choice of law, contract, quasi-contract, Massachusetts Wage Act, retaliation, and ADEA/Chapter 151B claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over Dasher (nonresident CEO) | Dasher directed and negotiated Levesque's compensation and supervised his Massachusetts-based work, creating sufficient contacts | Dasher is nonresident; jurisdiction over corporation should not automatically attach to the individual | Court finds specific jurisdiction: Massachusetts long-arm and due process satisfied; motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction denied |
| Transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) | Massachusetts is plaintiff's home forum, key events occurred there, governing law and witnesses linked to MA | Defendants prefer NY forum and point to records/witnesses there | Motion to transfer denied; deference to plaintiff's forum and forum connections favor MA |
| Breach of contract / quasi-contract claims for various bonuses/commissions | Levesque seeks recovery for several unpaid awards (2013, 2016, and post-termination 2017 commissions) | Defendants rely on written 2013 Plan and 2016 Memorandum (New York law governing contracts), disclaimers of oral modifications, discretionary language, and termination-forfeiture terms | Most contract and quasi-contract claims dismissed under NY law except two MA Wage Act/contract-protected quantitative awards: $367,000 (2016) and $732,000 (2017) survive; other monetary claims dismissed |
| Massachusetts Wage Act, retaliation, and age discrimination | Levesque contends unpaid commissions are wages under the Wage Act; he alleges retaliation after complaining and age discrimination under ADEA and Ch. 151B | Defendants argue many claims time-barred, discretionary/deferral schemes make payments non-wages, and legitimate reorganization nondiscriminatory | Court applies MA choice-of-law for statutory claims, finds MA Wage Act governs and allows Wage Act claims for $367,000 and $732,000 commissions (others time-barred or precluded); retaliation claim survives; ADEA/Chapter 151B claims survive against summary dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Cossart v. United Excel Corp., 804 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2015) (long-arm statute and forum contacts analysis)
- Massachusetts School of Law at Andover, Inc. v. American Bar Association, 142 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 1998) (jurisdictional facts construed in plaintiff's favor)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (minimum contacts and due process standard for personal jurisdiction)
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487 (1941) (federal diversity courts apply forum state choice-of-law rules)
- Bushkin Associates, Inc. v. Raytheon Co., 393 Mass. 622 (1985) (Massachusetts functional/most-significant-relationship approach to contract choice-of-law)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (limits on conclusory allegations at pleading stage)
- Weems v. Citigroup Inc., 453 Mass. 147 (2009) (analysis of discretionary payments and Wage Act coverage)
- Stanton v. Lighthouse Financial Services, Inc., 621 F. Supp. 2d 5 (D. Mass. 2009) (limits on enforcing special contracts that withhold earned wages/commissions)